M87ISS Essay: Human Nature and International Politics Analysis

This essay examines the critical influence of human nature on international politics, focusing on the contrasting perspectives of classical realism and liberalism. It explores how philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have shaped our understanding of this relationship. The essay delves into realism's view of human nature as inherently self-interested and prone to conflict, leading to an anarchic international system. It contrasts this with liberalism's more optimistic view, emphasizing human rationality and the potential for cooperation and peace. The paper analyzes key concepts such as anarchy, self-help, and power balancing, and discusses the relevance of these theories to contemporary international relations. The essay concludes by arguing that human nature remains a crucial factor in shaping international politics and understanding global conflicts and cooperation.

Human Nature and International Politics 1
Human Nature and International Politics
By (Student’s Name)
Name of the course
Instructor’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Department
Date

Human Nature and International Politics 2
Introduction
Human nature refers to a set of behavioural characteristics that are observed in most if
not all human beings (Purdy 2015). Politics revolves around the welfare of human beings. In
addition to this, politics is also run by human beings. It follows that human nature is
important in influencing international politics. International political factors are important in
influencing what happens in the world. understanding human nature would help ensure that
international politics are sound. In order to understand the relationship, it would be important
to consider the two main approaches that have been established in an attempt to explain the
human nature. These are classical realism and liberalism. It is imperative to note that most of
the knowledge that we have today concerning human nature has been developed by
philosophers. Classical realism has been developed by Thomas Hobbes. He argued that
human beings have an inherent trait of being tragic (Fitzgerald 2016). Therefore, if human
beings were to live in a state of anarchy, they would fight against one another with the aim of
being stronger than the other. The state on anarch would lead to unending quarrels, wars and
conflicts all over the world. The only way to overcome the conflict is through delegation of
power to the state.
Liberalism on the other hand refers to a more optimistic view. Liberalists believe that
since human beings are rational and have the ability to learn from their mistakes, then they
can create a peaceful society without the need to fight (Knutsen 2016). The key method of
approaching conflicts should be establishing peace and not fighting. It is imperative to note
that this approach was developed by John Locke. The best way to draw a relationship
between the theories and international politics is through considering the ideas of both. Both
explain human nature and relate this nature to international politics. The paper is going to
focus on internal politics and human nature. Human nature is the most important factor in
international politics.

Human Nature and International Politics 3
Human Nature and Realism in International Politics
Assumptions about human nature play a central role in international politics. Most of
the understanding that we have concerning human nature comes from theories that have been
developed by several philosophers (Forsythe 2017). In order to understand the importance
role of human nature in world politics, it would be imperative to look at two of these theories.
These are classical realism and liberalism. In classical realism, human motivation is seen to
be the root cause of conflict which is a common feature of the human nature. It is due to the
conflicting nature that states. It follows that the human nature, as presented in classical
realism is a very important factor in international politics. The assumptions that are made in
classical realism portray human nature to be rather tragic. In fact, tragedy is a key term that is
used when trying to figure out the understanding of human nature that classical realists have.
Due to the tragic view of human nature that classical realists have, they view history as being
cyclist in nature. Historically, there have been series of war between states. Even though
there may be peace for a while, this peace will not last and there will be war at some point in
future. It follows that the understanding of human nature that classical realists have is very
important in influencing international politics. One would tend to think of classical realism as
true considering the series of wars that have occurred and the short-term periods of peace that
were witnessed between the wars. An example would be world wars 1 and 2.
An important philosopher who has helped understand the relationship between human
nature and international politics is Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes wrote an essay on the state of
nature in which he describes the relationship that exists between human nature and world
politics. According to Hobbes, humans are egoistic by nature. They are always driven by
insecurity and fear (O'neill 2017). There are no constraints on human behaviour. Any person

Human Nature and International Politics 4
may use force whenever they wish. Since every person is driven by fear, there is a high
likelihood that individuals will engage in pre-emptive actions aimed at protecting themselves
(Gilpin 2016). In such situations where use of aggression is the best way to ensure survival, it
is more common for people to engage in war rather than engage in peaceful activities. The
observations of Hobbes may explain why there always seems to be aggression in
international politics. Almost every nation of the word wants to be in control of others to
ensure its own interests. This phenomenon is especially common among the super powers.
The super powers use any possible means to ensure that they are in control of everything that
is important for their wellbeing. Therefore, the aggressive nature of humans tends to manifest
itself in international politics.
According to Hobbes, the human nature directs people/ nations to believe that pre-
emptive actions that are varied out in a violent manner are the best way to act in order to
ensure survival (Burley 2017). This nature of human beings directs them to want to be in
control of others. Hobbes further argues that it is because of this state of human nature that
people in a state decide to form a government. Since every person is somehow violent by
nature, the citizens of a country delegate their anarchical tendencies to the government so that
the government can exert power on their behalf (Thompson 2017). If people were left to
exercise this power on their own, then we would have an anarchical society that is not only
unmanageable but very chaotic. It is therefore true to conclude that it is the human nature that
prompts the need for a government. As such human nature is the most important factor in
international politics. If we may follow the suggestions made by Hobbes from a local level to
an international one, we would probably understand the nature of wars and international
conflicts. Since the power of a state is derived from the power delegated to them by citizens,
states have a great urge to acquire more power. These observations may help explain why

Human Nature and International Politics 5
states have traditionally fought with the intention of conquering others. The more the number
of people that are under the control of a state, the more powerful it is.
As noted above, people have an inherent fearful nature that may lead them to engage
in pre-emptive activities with the aim of ensuring their safety. When they delegate their
power to the state, they also delegate this fear so that it is the state that fears losing its power.
As Hobbes observed, a state is analogous to a large family whose members work together to
ensure their protection. Therefore, it is inevitable that a state will always compete with others
for more power and dominance (Watkins 2017). This phenomenon is very common in the
contemporary world. Almost every nation of the world aims at being more powerful than
they are. The superpowers for instance practice their veto power in a manner that ensures that
their power is maintained. Here is an example. Some super powers warn other countries of
the world not to have nuclear weapons. These super powers emphasize on the importance of
eradicating nuclear weapons yet they have large stores of these weapons. It is the need to be
powerful that these countries have these weapons. Human beings by nature always want to
dominate (Jackson, Sørensen. and Møller 2019). They may do just about anything to
eliminate anyone or anything that stands on their way to dominion. In the case of
international politics, states are given the power to seek this dominion on behalf of the
people. Therefore, states are always looking for ways of ensuring that they become stronger.
It is without doubt that human nature plays an important role in international politics.
Human nature surely plays an important role in promoting civil wars. As already
discussed in the previous sections, a human being is anarchic by nature. If people were not to
delegate their power to the state, then we would have a chaotic society where every person
fights against the other (Eysenck 2018). This war would be carried out with an aim of seeking
dominion. Due to human nature, this kind of war is inevitable. Through transferring their
power to the state, the state becomes powerful and exerts control on behalf of the citizens. As

Human Nature and International Politics 6
a result of the power transfer, the battle for supremacy is now left to the state. The anarchic
nature of human beings simply shifts from personal levels to international ones (Booth and
Erskine 2016). It follows that human nature is the most important aspect of human nature.
Peace can never be seen as a permanent condition. Due to the anarchic nature of states
(obtained from the anarchic human nature) peace will only last a short period before another
war or conflict arises. In a nutshell, classical realism assumes that the nature of human beings
is that of being tragic. The anarchic nature of human beings can only be controlled by giving
the state a monopoly to exercise those powers (Carolan 2016). However, the transfer of
power to the state does not mean that there are no conflicts or wars any more. It only means
that there is a shift of war/ conflict from the individual to the international level. It would
therefore be true to conclude that human nature is the most important factor in international
politics.
Human Nature in Classical Liberalism
Liberalism adopts a rather positive nature of the human nature. Classical liberalism is
attributed to the philosopher John Locke. In contrast to the realism view of human nature,
liberalism adopts an optimistic view of the human nature. According to liberalists, human
beings have rational qualities and have the ability to learn from their past so that they do not
repeat the mistakes that they did in future (Russell 2016). In addition to these beliefs,
liberalists also believe that human beings are willing to build a better and a more peaceful
society. Human beings rational by nature (Baylis, Smith and Owens 2017). In fact, they are
the only social animals that are endowed with the ability to reason. Therefore, they can
always use the ability to reason to make a more peaceful society for themselves. The
argument of the liberalists is mainly founded on the ability of human beings to think
rationally. In a way, this nature is influential to international politics as it brings some sanity
into the kind of political activities that are carried out both locally and internationally. It is

Human Nature and International Politics 7
this fundamental difference between the two approaches that raise the first great debate in
international relations theory. Coming together with the aim of making peace is a
phenomenon that has been observed countless times all over the world (Niemeyer and Henry
2018). This is surely guided by the rational nature of human beings.
The sharp difference that exist between realism and liberalism present the different
views on human nature that are discussed in international relations theory. In the early days,
liberalists received great criticism from realists. The realists argued that the liberalists were
concerned on how the human nature and world politics are supposed to be (Cooley 2017). On
the other hand, realists argued that they presented human nature and the world politics as they
objectively are. Therefore, realists disregard liberalists as mere idealists whose observations
could be describes as a dream for a state of utopia. Realists viewed human nature as one in
which one would always fight with others if there was not state. Liberalism on the other hand
emphasizes on the importance role of human beings using their rational thinking to solve
conflicts that may exist between them (Mitchell 2015). According to this view, it is possible
for people to come together to resolve their conflicts in an amicable manner. An amicable
manner to refers to a resolution that is accepted by everyone or by the majority. It is worth
noting that Locke’s ideas were guided by those of Hobbes. However instead of viewing the
human nature as one which is always chaotic, he chose to view it as one that presents the
ability to amicable resolve any conflicts that may arise. Both states are influenced by lack of
power but Locke’s ides were different from Hobbes’ s ideas of a lawless society where every
person fights the other for dominion.
Although Locke makes great observations concerning human nature and international
politics, there are some problems that are associated with his observations. When an
empirical rather than a normative approach is used, it is discovered that human coexistence
was originally marked by lack of social institutions. The ideas of Locke assume a society

Human Nature and International Politics 8
with perfect freedom, justice and peace (Crawford 2018). This cannot be true since there are
conflicts between human beings as suggested by Hobbes. There are situations where human
beings fight each other with the aim of dominating one another. Although human beings
transfer their power and authority to a state, they are careful to ensure that the state is in the
hands of good leaders. Most states are democratic. In these states, people decide on the kind
of leaders that they will elect to represent them. Just as human beings are able to cooperate at
the local level, so it is also possible for states to cooperate at an international level (Hume
2017). In the same vein, just as human beings are able to overcome war at a local level so are
states able to overcome it at an international level. In a nutshell, there is a possibility for
states to come together and decide to live in peace and harmony with one another. Examples
of where this has happened is Europe. Countries in Europe have formed a union (the
European Union) which most countries in Europe are members. This unity helps the countries
coexist peacefully with one another.
The two approaches to human nature and international politics work together to show
that human nature is the most important factor in international politics (Head 2016).
Conflicts, wars and peace are shaped by the two approaches. The first approach, classical
realism, present human beings as people who are inherently in some form of conflict or great
urge to dominate. Due to this great urge, people would be ready to eliminate anything that
stands in the way of domination. It is important to understand that human nature is one that
almost always wants to lead (Zalewski and Parpart 2019). If we were to live in a situation of
anarchy, things would be very chaotic because every person would be fighting with the aim
of dominating others. The great urge to dominate could lead people to fight against one
another and the situation would be very chaotic. The only way to overcome a lawless and a
chaotic society is to hand over our power to the state, so that the state exercises the power in
the best interest of the people. Most countries of the world have some form of a government.

Human Nature and International Politics 9
The presence of governments in various states shows that is very important for people to
surrender their power for the wellbeing of all people. The concept of liberalism is also
important in explaining international politics. Human beings are rational by nature and are
willing to make decisions that are the best interest of every one or the majority (Gelpi, 2018).
This rationality is transferred form people at the local level to the state level. The state level
of governance then transfers this rationality to international politics. This kind of transfer of
rationality could help explain why governments across the world aim at establishing peaceful
relationships with one another (Strauss 2017). It would therefore be true to say that classical
realism and liberalism help explain why human nature is the most important factor in
international politics.
Conclusion
Human nature is the most important factor in international politics since it determines
how people and countries will relate with each other at the international level. International
relations simply define international politics. There are two main approaches of human nature
that can be used to draw the relationship between the nature of human beings and
international relations. The first approach is classical realism. It was developed by the
philosopher Thomas Hobbes. He carried out research and observations for many days before
concluding that human nature is essentially chaotic. He argued that if human beings are left to
live by themselves in a society that has neither laws nor some form of authority, then
everyone would be fighting against every one. According to realists, human beings delegate
their power to a state so that the state can exercise that power on their behalf. If people were
left to rule themselves, then things would turn chaotic. Hobbes observed that delegating
power to a state or government does not necessarily end the conflicting nature that inherently
resides in a human being. Rather, the nature is transferred to the state. Therefore, it is
inevitable for the state to engage in war.

Human Nature and International Politics 10
Liberalism on the other hand refers to an approach that views human beings as being
peaceful and rational. The approach was developed by John Locke. He argued that since
human beings are endowed with the ability to make rational decisions, they can decide to live
well with one another without the need to fight or have conflicts with one another. In the
same vein, it is possible to achieve peace at an international level. The approach is limiting
because it only focuses on the positive side of human beings while disregarding the negative
ones as those identified in the realism approach. The two approaches work best when
combined. Human beings have a nature saturated with conflicts but are also endowed with
the ability to reason. Therefore, instead of resulting to fighting, people may often result to
peaceful ways of amicably solving a problem. The peace seeking process may also manifest
itself at the international arena where states come together and decide to live peacefully with
one another.

Human Nature and International Politics 11
References
Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. eds., 2017. The globalization of world politics: An
introduction to international relations. 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press.
Booth, K. and Erskine, T. eds., 2016. International relations theory today. 2nd ed. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Burley, A.M.S., 2017. International law and international relations theory: a dual agenda.
3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
Carolan, M.S., 2016. Embodied food politics. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Cooley, C.H., 2017. Human nature and the social order. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Crawford, N.C., 2018. The Potential for Fundamental Change in World Politics.
International Studies Review, 20(2), pp.232-238.
Eysenck, H.J., 2018. The psychology of politics. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Fitzgerald, R. ed., 2016. Human needs and politics. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Elsevier.
Forsythe, D.P., 2017. Human rights in international relations. 2nd ed. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Gelpi, E., 2018. Lifelong education and international relations. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
Gilpin, R., 2016. The political economy of international relations. 2nd ed. New York:
Princeton University Press.
Head, L., 2016. Hope and Grief in the Anthropocene: Re-conceptualising human–nature
relations. 2nd ed: New York: Routledge.
Hume, D., 2017. A treatise of human nature. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Jovian Press.

Human Nature and International Politics 12
Jackson, R., Sørensen, G. and Møller, J., 2019. Introduction to international relations:
theories and approaches. 2nd ed. London: Oxford University Press.
Knutsen, T.L., 2016. A history of international relations theory. 2nd ed. London: Oxford
University Press.
Mitchell, J.M., 2015. International cultural relations. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
Niemeyer, G. and Henry, M., 2018. Law without force: the function of politics in
international law. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
O'neill, K., 2017. The environment and international relations. 2nd ed. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Purdy, J., 2015. After nature: A politics for the Anthropocene. 3rd ed. New York: Harvard
University Press.
Russell, B., 2016. Philosophy and politics. 2nd ed. London: Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, A.L., 2017. Social psychology and human values. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
Thompson, P., 2017. Peace and war: a theory of international relations. 3rd ed. New York:
Routledge.
Watkins, J.W., 2017. Philosophy and Politics in Hobbes 1. 2nd ed: New York: Routledge.
Zalewski, M. and Parpart, J. eds., 2019. The" man" question in international relations. 3rd ed.
New York: Routledge.